Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Verified Null-Move Pruning, ICGA 25(3)

Author: Bas Hamstra

Date: 17:15:47 11/20/02

Go up one level in this thread


On November 20, 2002 at 14:53:45, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>On November 20, 2002 at 11:52:49, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>
>>My very first thought after looking through this was:
>>
>>'You note that Heinz R=2/3 appears to be superior to
>>R=2 and R=3, but you don't include it in the comparison.'
>>
>>--
>>GCP
>
>I would disagree with such a conclusion anyway. R=3 always
>works better for me in the year 2002 :)
>
>In 1996 just R=2 was ok. In 1997 i used a combination of R=3 and R=2,
>and in 2002 such a combination is not possible. R=3 gives me a ply
>extra compared to a combination of R=3 + R=2. *on average*.

For me R=2/3 is superior to R=2 and R=3. The biggest problem with R=3 for me, is
that it makes my search unstable. Some positions it even solves slower. Others
it searches deeper but misses the right move.

Bas.





This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.